System and method for adaptive matching of user profiles based on viewing and contact activity for social relationship services

- Plentyoffish Media ULC

A method and system which adaptively recommends potential relationships to individual users based on a set of items that are known to be of interest to the user, such as a set of potential matches previously messaged by the user. The system generates the adaptive recommendations using previously-generated user activity that indicates the user's preferences of particular attributes.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  ·  References Cited  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit, under 35 U.S.C. §119(e), of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/074,142, filed Jun. 19, 2008, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present systems and methods relate to the field of online dating and social relationship services, and more particularly to a system and method of adaptively selecting and displaying potential user profile matches based upon a user's prior viewing and selection history.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Online dating and social relationship services have become a popular way for individuals to meet and to begin relationships whether for friendship, romance, or the pursuit of shared interests. As Internet-based technology has evolved, so have the online dating services and social relationship services. What began as chat rooms and sometimes even as telephone-based services have evolved into more sophisticated services offering photographs, videos, highly detailed profiles and predictive compatibility tests all intended to allow a user to be matched more precisely with a set of potential new acquaintances or dates.

Unfortunately, the fault with these highly detailed profiles and with the search functions and predictive compatibility tests built upon them is contained in a simple truth: what people say they wish to do is not exactly what they will actually do and that the things that people say they want are not necessarily the things that these same people actually want.

On one particular dating site, plentyoffish.com, a complex variability has been observed between the desired characteristics of a potential match that a user will describe in completing a user survey and in the characteristics that exist within the profiles that the user actually chooses to view or select for further contact.

For example, in filling out a user survey, the user may indicate a preference for non-smokers, but in selecting profiles to view and users to contact, may not pay much attention to the attribute of smoking.

Conversely, a user may indicate in the user survey a preference for matches who are taller than 5′10″ and then adhere to that criterion when selecting user profiles.

One facet of the problem in providing an optimal selection of user profiles based upon survey responses is that not all questions on an online dating or social relationship survey are meaningful or important to each user. Even if the survey would allow a user to specify an importance for each attribute, the user's estimation could still be in error. The observed activity of the user in relation to candidate user profiles, recorded over time, is a better measure of their actual preferences and predictor of their future preferences.

There exists then, a need for an online dating service or social relationship service where the selection of potential matches to be displayed to a particular user is adaptive to the actual interests and desires of that user based upon his or her actual viewing and contact history in addition to the interest and desire information originally reported and maintained in the user's profile.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one aspect of the present systems and methods, a computer-implemented method of matching a user of a social relationship service and a set of candidate user profiles for viewing and contact comprises providing a plurality of candidate user profiles to said user, recording said user's viewing and contact actions in relation to said candidate user profiles, correlating said user's viewing and contact actions to a plurality of user profile attribute values, identifying a second set of candidate user profiles based upon said correlated profile attribute values, and providing said second set of candidate user profiles to said user.

In a second aspect of the present systems and methods, a computer-implemented method of determining the preferences of a user of a social relationship service for candidate user profiles based upon said user's viewing and contact histories comprises correlating said user's viewing and contact history to a plurality of user profile attribute values, calculating weighting factors for the importance of each user profile attribute; and using said correlated user preferences and said weighting factors to determine a total ranking score per candidate user profile; and retrieving and ordering said candidate user profiles from a data store based upon their ranking scores.

In a third aspect of the present systems and methods, a computer-implemented method of selecting and displaying user profile records comprises correlating a user's viewing and selection-for-contact choices with a plurality of attribute values and querying user profile records within a data store based upon said plurality of attribute values.

In a fourth aspect of the present systems and methods, a computer-implemented method of matching a user of an online dating service and a set of candidate user profiles for viewing and contact comprises providing a plurality of candidate user profiles to said user, recording said user's viewing and contact actions in relation to said candidate user profiles, correlating said user's viewing and contact actions to a plurality of user profile attribute values, identifying a second set of candidate user profiles based upon said correlated profile attribute values; and providing said second set of candidate user profiles to said user.

In a fifth aspect of the present systems and methods, a computer-implemented method of matching a user of a social relationship service and a set of candidate user profiles for viewing and contact comprises providing a plurality of candidate user profiles to said user, recording said user's viewing and contact actions in relation to said candidate user profiles, correlating said user's viewing and contact actions to a plurality of user profile attribute values, identifying a second set of candidate user profiles based upon said correlated profile attribute values; and providing said second set of candidate user profiles to said user.

In a sixth aspect to the present systems and methods, a computer-readable storage medium containing a set of instructions for a computer program comprises a display module for providing a plurality of candidate user profiles to said user, a recording module for recording said user's viewing and contact actions in relation to said candidate user profiles, a correlation module for correlating said user's viewing and contact actions to a plurality of user profile attribute values, and a query module for identifying and retrieving a second set of candidate user profiles from a data store based upon said correlated profile attribute values.

These and other features, aspects and advantages of the present systems and methods will become better understood with reference to the following drawings, description and claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a system diagram illustrating the components of the user profile matching service according to at least an aspect of the present systems and methods;

FIG. 2 is flow chart illustrating the user profile matching service according to at least an aspect of the present systems and methods;

FIG. 3 is an illustration of the use of population frequency and user viewing and contact frequencies to create weighting factors according to at least an aspect of the present systems and methods.

FIG. 4 is an illustration of the use of attribute occurrence and weighting factors to produce rankings of user profiles within a hypothetical example population according to at least an aspect of the present systems and methods.

 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The following detailed description is of the currently contemplated modes of carrying out the present systems and methods. The description is not to be taken in a limiting sense, but is made merely for the purpose of illustrating the general principles of the present systems and methods, since the scope of the present systems and methods is best defined by the appended claims.

In one embodiment of the present systems and methods, a social relationship service is implemented across a distributed network of computers. FIG. 1 illustrates a system diagram of such an embodiment.

The system includes a number of client computers 10, 20, 30, and 40, connected via network connections 50 and 60 to an online matching service server 70. This online matching service server 70 has access to a data store 80 in which are data set representing the user viewing and contact histories 90 of all users. In addition, the data store includes the candidate user profiles 100 of all users in the system. Candidate user profiles are any user profiles within the online matching service other than the user's own (though an exclusion of all user profiles not matching the user's gender preference are usually excluded).

In response to a user request on one of the client computers 10, 20, 30 and 40, the online matching server 70 and data store 80 are capable of producing the sub set of candidate user profiles for a user 110, as shown.

FIG. 2 illustrates a process of the online matching service. The process begins by providing a plurality of candidate user profiles to a user in 200. Next, the user's viewing and contact actions are recorded in 210 and then correlated to user profile attribute values in 220.

Based upon the user's viewing and selection history, a second set of candidate user profiles is identified in 230 and then retrieved and provided to the user in 240.

In an embodiment of the present systems and methods, the correlation of user factors to candidate user profiles is augmented by the use of weighting factors to represent the importance of the particular profile attribute to the user's selection of a profile for viewing or for contact. FIG. 3 provides an illustration of the process of calculating these weighting factors.

FIG. 3 shows three tables. The first table, the Population Frequency table 300, shows the frequency of values for two user profile attributes, “height over 5′10″” and “smoker,” within the total population of candidate user profiles.

The second table, User Viewing and Contact Frequency 310, shows the frequency with which a user selected a user profile with that attribute value for viewing or chose to make contact with that user.

The third table, the Weighted User Preference Factors table 320, shows one embodiment of a calculation of a weighting factor for each user profile attribute based upon the ratio of user viewing and contact frequency to population frequency. In this embodiment, the weighting factor is calculated by taking the ratio of the user viewing and contact frequency and dividing it by the population frequency of an attribute and then subtracting the result from 1.0 to get a normalized result with either a positive or negative sign.

These weighting factors can then be applied to rank candidate user profiles and then to select and display candidate user profiles based upon rank.

FIG. 4 provides an example of an embodiment of the present systems and methods, using a hypothetical four user population to show how one may apply the weighting factors of table 320 to a four user population with a set of respective attributes and user preference factors.

The first table 400 shows four users in a hypothetical user profile data store, Each of the candidate users possess two attributes: (Height >5′10) and whether a user is a smoker.

For purposes of this example, we assume that the user prefers to view and contact profiles of users with Height >5′10 and also prefers non-smokers.

The second table, 410, shows the result of calculating a ranking score based upon the weighting factors previously calculated in table 320 from FIG. 3. Each user may begin with a base score of 100. This score is then adjusted by taking each of the weighting factors and multiplying by the base factor. Lastly, if a candidate profile matches the user preference factor we may represent the weighting factor as a positive number in table 410 (e.g., +1), and if a candidate profile does not match the user preference factor we may represent the weighting factor as a negative number in table 410 (e.g., −1).

For user one, who is a strong match for the user, we would calculate as follows:
(base score)+
(height weighting factor*100*[−1 or 1 for attribute])+
(smoker weighting factor*100*[−1 or 1 for attribute])=total score
Yielding for user one:
100+0.33*100*1+−0.14*100*−1=100+33+14=147.

FIG. 4 shows the results of these calculations for each user in the candidate user profile pool in table 410.

The selection of user profiles may also, optionally, be affected by two additional features of the adaptable matching system used to configure how quickly the system adapts and what level of randomness to seed into the user results.

The first of these factors, an adaptability factor, can be used to limit how quickly the matching engine adapts to the user's observed preferences. The easiest way to think about the utility of this factor is to return to the example of the user in FIG. 3 who has expressed a preference for non-smokers, but who may actually view and contact smokers as well as non-smokers.

Let us assume for purposes of example that the user has just signed up with the online service and has clicked on a single user profile before being pulled away from his or her computer to answer an incoming telephone call. Let us further assume the user profile viewed happened to be that of a smoker.

It turns out to be several hours before the user is able to return to the online service. As the user logs in, the question becomes, how many smokers and non-smokers should the matching engine select to display to the user? Based on the user's viewing and contact history, we see that the user has selected the profiles of smokers 100% of the time (the one single click after signing up with the service). It is undesirable to make a radical change in the selected set of user profiles (to show only smokers) on the basis of a single observation. It is useful, therefore, to have an adaptability factor, expressed as a number or a percentage that limits how quickly the system should adapt to changes in the user's observed preferences.

A second factor, a random sample percentage, may provide a different function. The random sample percentage may help to preserve the ability of the system to continue to adapt once the user's observed preferences have been stable for some time. The random sample percentage may be used to configure a percentage of the user profiles that will be presented to the user that are randomly selected, or at least randomly selected on the basis of one or more attributes.

It should be understood, of course, that the foregoing relates to exemplary embodiments of the present systems and methods and that modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present systems and methods as set forth in the following claims.

Claims

1. A method of operating a matching system including at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium that stores a data store including a plurality of candidate user profiles, each of the plurality of candidate user profiles includes a number of user-reported user profile attribute values (UUPAVs) which represent attributes reported by respective candidate users, the matching system further including at least one processor communicatively coupled to the nontransitory computer-readable medium to match users of a social relationship service with respective ones of the candidate user profiles for viewing and contact by the users, the method comprising:

selecting at least some of the UUPAVs included in the plurality of candidate user profiles;
for each of the selected UUPAVs, determining, by the at least one processor, a population frequency for the UUPAV, wherein the population frequency represents the frequency with which the UUPAV is present in the plurality of candidate user profiles;
querying the data store by the at least one processor for a first set of the candidate user profiles on behalf of a first user;
providing the first set of the candidate user profiles to the first user;
recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, a number of viewing actions of the first user, each of the number of viewing actions represents a viewing of one of the candidate user profiles in the first set of the candidate user profiles by the first user;
for each of the number of recorded viewing actions, recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, whether each of the selected UUPAVs is present in each of the respective candidate user profiles in the first set of candidate user profiles viewed by the first user;
recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, a number of contact actions of the first user, each of the number of contact actions represents a contact between the first user and respective ones of candidate users represented by the first set of candidate user profiles;
for each of the number of recorded contact actions, recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, whether each of the selected UUPAVs is present in each of the respective candidate user profiles in the first set of candidate user profiles contacted by the first user;
for each of the selected UUPAVs, determining, by the at least one processor, a frequency for the selected UUPAV, wherein the determined frequency represents a frequency with which the user views candidate user profiles having the selected UUPAV or contacts users having the selected UUPAV;
for each of the selected UUPAVs, generating, by the at least one processor, a weighting factor based at least in part on a comparison between the determined frequency of the selected UUPAVs for the first user and the determined population frequency for the selected UUPAVs;
querying the data store by the at least one processor on behalf of the first user for a second set of candidate user profiles based at least in part on the generated weighting factors for the selected UUPAVs; and
providing, by the at least one processor, the second set of the candidate user profiles to the first user.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein recording the number of viewing actions of the first user and the number of contact actions of the first user includes recording the viewing and contact actions of the first user across multiple browsing sessions.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein recording the number of viewing actions of the first user and the number of contact actions of the first user includes recording the viewing and contact actions across an entire browsing history of the first user.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein providing the first set of the candidate user profiles to the first user includes:

transmitting the first set of the candidate user profiles over a distributed network of computers for display by a respective one of the computers which is operated by the first user.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein providing the second set of the candidate user profiles to the user includes:

transmitting the second set of the candidate user profiles over a distributed network of computers for display by a respective one of the computers which is operated by the first user.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

making the social relationship service available across a distributed computer network.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the social relationship service is an online business or professional networking service.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

applying an adaptability factor to adjust how quickly the viewing and contact actions of the first user affect the weighting factors used in querying the data store.

9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

ranking the second set of results by the at least one processor according to the generated weighting factors.

10. The method of claim 1 wherein generating a weighting factor based at least in part on a comparison between the determined frequency of the selected UUPAV for the first user and the determined population frequency for the selected UUPAV comprises generating a weighting factor which is based at least in part on a ratio of the frequency to the population frequency.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein generating a weighting factor which is based at least in part on a ratio of the frequency to the population frequency comprises normalizing the weighting factor.

12. A method of operating a matching system including at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium that stores a data store including a plurality of candidate user profiles, each of the plurality of candidate user profiles includes a number of user-reported user profile attribute values (UUPAVs) which represent attributes reported by respective candidate users, the matching system further including at least one processor communicatively coupled to the nontransitory computer-readable medium to match users of a social relationship service with respective ones of the candidate user profiles for viewing and contact by the users, the method comprising:

selecting at least some of the UUPAVs included in the plurality of candidate user profiles;
for each of the selected UUPAVs, determining, by the at least one processor, a population frequency for the UUPAV, wherein the population frequency represents the frequency with which the UUPAV is present in the plurality of candidate user profiles;
querying the data store by the at least one processor for a first set of the candidate user profiles on behalf of a first user;
providing the first set of the candidate user profiles to the first user;
recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, a number of viewing actions of the first user, each of the number of viewing actions represents a viewing of one of the candidate user profiles in the first set of the candidate user profiles by the first user;
for each of the number of recorded viewing actions, recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, whether each of the selected UUPAVs is present in each of the respective candidate user profiles in the first set of candidate user profiles viewed by the first user;
recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, a number of contact actions of the first user, each of the number of contact actions represents a contact between the first user and respective ones of candidate users represented by the first set of candidate user profiles;
for each of the number of recorded contact actions, recording, by the at least one processor in the at least one nontransitory computer-readable medium, whether each of the selected UUPAVs is present in each of the respective candidate user profiles in the first set of candidate user profiles contacted by the first user;
for each of the selected UUPAVs, determining, by the at least one processor, a frequency for the selected UUPAV, wherein the determined frequency represents a frequency with which the user views candidate user profiles having the selected UUPAV or contacts users having the selected UUPAV;
for each of the selected UUPAVs, generating, by the at least one processor, a weighting factor based at least in part on a comparison between the determined frequency of the selected UUPAVs for the first user and the determined population frequency for the selected UUPAVs;
querying the data store by the at least one processor on behalf of the first user for a second set of candidate user profiles based at least in part on the generated weighting factors for the selected UUPAVs; and
providing, by the at least one processor, the second set of the candidate user profiles to the first user; and
applying a random sample percentage to augment the second set of the candidate user profiles with a percentage of randomly selected candidate user profiles based on the random sample percentage.
Referenced Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
5583763 December 10, 1996 Atcheson et al.
5749091 May 5, 1998 Ishida et al.
5963951 October 5, 1999 Collins
6006225 December 21, 1999 Bowman et al.
6018738 January 25, 2000 Breese et al.
6038295 March 14, 2000 Mattes
6041311 March 21, 2000 Chislenko et al.
6049777 April 11, 2000 Sheena et al.
6058367 May 2, 2000 Sutcliffe et al.
6064980 May 16, 2000 Jacobi et al.
6134532 October 17, 2000 Lazarus et al.
6169986 January 2, 2001 Bowman et al.
6199067 March 6, 2001 Geller
6266649 July 24, 2001 Linden et al.
6356879 March 12, 2002 Aggarwal et al.
6735568 May 11, 2004 Buckwalter et al.
6772150 August 3, 2004 Whitman et al.
6782370 August 24, 2004 Stack
6783065 August 31, 2004 Spitz et al.
6853982 February 8, 2005 Smith et al.
6912505 June 28, 2005 Linden et al.
7113917 September 26, 2006 Jacobi et al.
7240353 July 3, 2007 Lau et al.
7313536 December 25, 2007 Westphal
7324998 January 29, 2008 Beres et al.
8122142 February 21, 2012 Svendsen et al.
8180765 May 15, 2012 Nicolov
8566938 October 22, 2013 Prakash et al.
8577874 November 5, 2013 Svendsen et al.
8620790 December 31, 2013 Priebatsch
8626663 January 7, 2014 Nightengale et al.
8825802 September 2, 2014 Pearce
8930398 January 6, 2015 Kishore et al.
9047611 June 2, 2015 Krishnamoorthy et al.
9069945 June 30, 2015 Singh
9219704 December 22, 2015 Hamlin et al.
20020095303 July 18, 2002 Asayama et al.
20020156632 October 24, 2002 Haynes et al.
20030093405 May 15, 2003 Mayer
20030234519 December 25, 2003 Farmer
20040012638 January 22, 2004 Donnelli et al.
20050027707 February 3, 2005 Syed
20050108227 May 19, 2005 Russell-Falla et al.
20050108344 May 19, 2005 Tafoya et al.
20050240608 October 27, 2005 Jones et al.
20060018522 January 26, 2006 Sunzeri et al.
20060059142 March 16, 2006 Zvinyatskovsky et al.
20060256959 November 16, 2006 Hymes
20070005587 January 4, 2007 Johnson et al.
20070112792 May 17, 2007 Majumder
20070206917 September 6, 2007 Ono et al.
20070265962 November 15, 2007 Bowe, Jr. et al.
20080039121 February 14, 2008 Muller et al.
20080086534 April 10, 2008 Bardak et al.
20080103971 May 1, 2008 Lukose et al.
20090066722 March 12, 2009 Kriger et al.
20090094048 April 9, 2009 Wallace et al.
20090106043 April 23, 2009 Buckwalter et al.
20090144329 June 4, 2009 Marlow
20090164464 June 25, 2009 Carrico et al.
20090216734 August 27, 2009 Aghajanyan et al.
20090248599 October 1, 2009 Hueter et al.
20090299645 December 3, 2009 Colby et al.
20100002920 January 7, 2010 Cosatto et al.
20100036806 February 11, 2010 Lam et al.
20100114614 May 6, 2010 Sharpe
20100169376 July 1, 2010 Chu
20100318544 December 16, 2010 Nicolov
20110107260 May 5, 2011 Park et al.
20110131085 June 2, 2011 Wey
20110167059 July 7, 2011 Fallah
20110178881 July 21, 2011 Pulletikurty
20110219310 September 8, 2011 Robson
20110270813 November 3, 2011 Cok et al.
20110306028 December 15, 2011 Galimore
20120059850 March 8, 2012 Bent et al.
20120088524 April 12, 2012 Moldavsky et al.
20120102410 April 26, 2012 Gewecke et al.
20120110085 May 3, 2012 Malik et al.
20120123828 May 17, 2012 Pahls et al.
20120166285 June 28, 2012 Shapiro et al.
20120190386 July 26, 2012 Anderson
20120198002 August 2, 2012 Goulart et al.
20120284341 November 8, 2012 Masood et al.
20130138741 May 30, 2013 Redstone et al.
20130262984 October 3, 2013 Mehr et al.
20130282745 October 24, 2013 Mishra et al.
20140052861 February 20, 2014 Frind et al.
20140095598 April 3, 2014 Schornack et al.
20140095603 April 3, 2014 Bhardwaj et al.
20140122628 May 1, 2014 Yao et al.
20140136933 May 15, 2014 Berger et al.
20140156750 June 5, 2014 De Cristofaro et al.
20140207637 July 24, 2014 Groarke
Other references
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/857,617, filed Jul. 23, 2013, 138 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Systems and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Evaluating Entity Pairs,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/163,849, filed Jan. 24, 2014, 75 pages.
  • Kuchka et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Identify Discrepancies Between Clients and in Response Prompt Clients in a Networked Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/204,939, filed Mar. 11, 2014, 92 pages.
  • Levi et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Effect User Interest-Based Matching in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/976,296, filed Apr. 7, 2014, 111 pages.
  • Levi et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Automatic Detection and Removal of Fraudulent User Information in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/911,908, filed Dec. 4, 2013, 88 pages.
  • MacKinnon, “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Exchange of Messages in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/918,466, filed Dec. 19, 2013, 83 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Effect Electronic Message Reply Rate Matching in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/914,154, filed Dec. 10, 2013, 50 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Systems and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Providing Service Level Upgrade Offers,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/974,129, filed Apr. 2, 2014, 95 pages.
  • Tekle et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Automatic Detection and Removal of Fraudulent Advertising Accounts in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/948,159, filed Mar. 5, 2014, 79 pages.
  • “Binary search tree,” Wikipedia, retrieved on Feb. 24, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary—search—tree, 11 pages.
  • “Chargeback,” Wikipedia, retrieved on Feb. 24, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargeback, 4 pages.
  • “Merchant account,” Wikipedia, retrieved on Feb. 24, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant—account, 10 pages.
  • “Understanding Chargebacks: A Guide to Chargebacks for Online Merchants,” DalPay, retrieved on Feb. 24, 2015, from https://www.dalpay.com/en/support/chargebacks.html, 6 pages.
  • Levi et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Effect User Interest-Based Matching in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/668,808, filed Mar. 25, 2015, 111 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Predict and Prevent Chargebacks in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/679,792, filed Apr. 6, 2015, 69 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Systems and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Providing Service Level Upgrade Offers,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/672,749, filed Mar. 30, 2015, 95 pages.
  • Tekle et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Automatic Detection and Removal of Fraudulent Advertising Accounts in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/638,225, filed Mar. 4, 2015, 79 pages.
  • Therneau et al., “An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning Using the RPART Routines,” Mayo Clinic, Feb. 24, 2015, 62 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/339,328, filed Jul. 23, 2014, 135 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” Preliminary Amendment filed Jul. 23, 2014, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/339,328, 11 pages.
  • Levi et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Automatic Detection and Removal of Fraudulent User Information in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/561,004, filed Dec. 4, 2014, 89 pages.
  • MacKinnon, “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Exchange of Messages in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/575,888, filed Dec. 18, 2014, 83 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Effect Electronic Message Reply Rate Matching in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/563,504, filed Dec. 8, 2014, 55 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate User Behavioral Based Determination of User Values in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 62/013,849, filed Jun. 18, 2014, 68 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Systems and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Evaluating Entity Pairs,” Office Action, mailed Jan. 29, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/163,849, 61 pages.
  • Frind et al., “System and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Evaluating Entity Pairs,” Amendment filed May 27, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/163,849, 23 pages.
  • Frind et al., “System and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Evaluating Entity Pairs,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/756,912, filed Jan. 25, 2013, 75 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” Office Action, mailed Apr. 6, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/971,483, 26 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/691,082, filed Aug. 20, 2012, 131 pages.
  • Kuchka et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Identify Discrepancies Between Clients and in Response Prompt Clients in a Networked Environment,” Office Action, mailed Apr. 4, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/204,939, 80 pages.
  • Kuchka et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Identify Discrepancies Between Clients and in Response Prompt Clients in a Networked Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 61/780,391, filed Mar. 13, 2013, 92 pages.
  • Oldridge et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate User Behavioral Based Determination of User Values in a Network Environment,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/737,121, filed Jun. 11, 2015, 68 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” Office Action mailed Sep. 21, 2015, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/971,483, 25 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” Amendment filed Dec. 8, 2015, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/971,483, 33 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” Response Under 37 CFR 1.116, dated Jul. 21, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 13/971,483, 21 pages.
  • Frind et al., “Systems and Methods for Training and Employing a Machine Learning System in Evaluating Entity Pairs,” Office Action, mailed Aug. 16, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/163,849, 60 pages.
  • Kuchka et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Identify Discrepancies Between Clients and in Response Prompt Clients in a Networked Environment,” Office Action, mailed Sep. 8, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/204,939, 104 pages.
  • Kuchka et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Identify Discrepancies Between Clients and in Response Prompt Clients in a Networked Environment,” Amendment, dated Aug. 4, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/204,939, 38 pages.
  • Fiore et al., “Assessing Attractiveness in Online Dating Profiles,” CHI 2008 Proceedings—Friends, Foe, and Family, pp. 797-806, 2008.
  • Office Action, dated Sep. 20, 2016, for U.S. Appl. No. 14/339,328, Frind et al., “Apparatus, Method and Article to Facilitate Matching of Clients in a Networked Environment,” 30 Pages.
Patent History
Patent number: 9536221
Type: Grant
Filed: Jun 19, 2009
Date of Patent: Jan 3, 2017
Patent Publication Number: 20100262611
Assignee: Plentyoffish Media ULC (Vancouver, British Columbia)
Inventor: Markus Frind (Vancouver)
Primary Examiner: Boris Gorney
Assistant Examiner: Amanda Willis
Application Number: 12/488,512
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: Based On User History (705/14.25)
International Classification: G06F 17/30 (20060101); G06Q 10/10 (20120101);